In the Future "Privacy" Will be a Dirty Word

Way back in 1968, Andy Warhol said that in the future, everyone would have 15 minutes of fame. His prophecy has been reality for many years now, since the advent of reality TV shows, smartphones with cameras, YouTube, and the ability we all have to post any words, recording or video online, where it will live forever.

A few days ago I saw an amusing, clever and scary bit of  graffiti written on a wall. It said: "In the future everyone will be private for 15 minutes." I stopped in my tracks for a moment and realized that the unknown writer of those words was on to something.

There is a TV show on CBS called Person of Interest. Maybe you've seen it. The premise is that the government has a machine that spies on everyone 24/7/365. Every webcam, street camera, computer camera, internet device and microphone is somehow hooked into this machine. The machine analyzes everything and identifies threats. The two protagonists of the drama are the inventor of the machine and a former CIA operative. They've gone rogue, in that they use the machine to help ordinary people who are in danger - people the government considers irrelevant.

We may be closer to that reality than any of us care to acknowledge. Regardless of what you think of Edward Snowden, the contractor who fled to China, and now Russia, harboring untold secrets of the National Security Agency, his story has shoved the topic of government surveillance of everyone to the top of our collective awareness.

If we are in fact all being watched, and listened to, 24/7/365, as in Person of Interest, then our mystery graffiti writer may be correct. In the future, there will be no privacy, anywhere, anytime, and if we manage to get 15 minutes alone we'll be lucky indeed.

Surveillance is not just the domain of big governments and shadowy intelligence agencies, however. Anyone with a camera in his pocket - and who doesn't have a camera in their pocket - can record you without your knowledge or consent. Even if you manage not to post anything and everything about your life on Facebook, you still are potentially subject to Big Surveillance and individual surveillance.

The issue of individual surveillance came up this week with the arrest of a man who was charged with violating Article 250 of the New York Penal Code, which covers offenses against the right to privacy. I learned of the story at http://gothamist.com/2013/08/10/man_arrested_for_filming_woman_thro.php.

The defendant evidently was standing on an elevated subway platform in Brooklyn, where his eyes spied a woman in her apartment engaged in auto-erotic activity. (I am reminded of a scene in an old Woody Allen movie, in which a woman who has just made love with Allen asks him how he became such a skilled lover. He replied, "I practice a lot on my own".)

In any event, our subway platform observer decided to record the events unfolding before him with the camera in his phone. He later stated that he had no intention of posting the video online or doing anything nefarious with the recording. He merely found it intriguing and wanted to share it with his girlfriend.

Keep in mind that the defendant was standing in a public place, out in the open. All he did was to aim his phone at a window some distance away. The window apparently was bereft of blinds or curtains. The self-amorous occupant's doings were out there for all the world to witness - at least all the world that had the right line of sight.

If all the defendant had done was to watch and enjoy, he would have had no trouble with the law. The moment he decided to record the action for later replay, however, he was afoul of Article 250.

Whether he will eventually be convicted of any crime is an open question, for now. One can ask whether a person engaged in sexual activity - alone or in the company of others - in plain view of a significant chunk of the outside world - has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Back in the old days, people had the good sense to close the window blinds before doing what people do. Now, not so much.

The moral of this urban tale is simply this: you are being watched, and not all the watchers have badges. So watch out, if you want to maintain what little shreds of privacy you have left.

Banks are still screwing up

This week a judge in Brooklyn dismissed a foreclosure case that a bank brought against a dead guy. Normally that doesn't fly.

The borrower died two years before the bank started the foreclosure lawsuit. When a person dies, generally any legal cases in which he or she was involved gets "stayed", i.e. stopped, until a representative of the person's estate is appointed in the Surrogate's Court (called Probate Court most other places). If there is no representative, there can be no lawsuit against the deceased person.

Banks have been known to file petitions in Surrogate's Court to force the appointment of an estate administrator so that a foreclosure could begin or proceed. That's what the bank in this case should have done. Instead, Justice Francois Rivera dismissed the foreclosure case, forcing the bank to begin at the beginning once an estate representative is appointed.